Skip to main content

Full text of "Overview of analytic framework and approach of the social component of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program"

See other formats


SJVDP LIBRARY j^^:^. 



OVERVIEW OF THE ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK AND APPROACH 
OF THE SOCIAL COMPONENT OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY 

DRAINAGE PROGRAM 



Prepared for the 

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2143 

Sacramento, CA 95825-1898 



December 1988 



This report presents the results of a study conducted for the Federal-State 
Interagency San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. The purpose of the Repon is to 
provide the Drainage Program agencies with information for consideration in developing 
alternatives for agricultural drainage water management. Publication of any findings or 
recommendations in this report should not be construed as representing the concurrence of 
the Program agencies. Also, mention of trade names or commercial products does not 
constitute agency endorsement or recommendation. 



The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established in mid- 1984 as a 
cooperative effort of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
U.S. Geological Survey, California Department of Fish and Game, and California 
Department of Water Resources. The purposes of the Program are to investigate the 
problems associated with the drainage of irrigated agricultural lands in the San Joaquin 
Valley and to formulate, evaluate, and recommend alternatives for the immediate and long- 
term management of those problems. Consistent with these purposes. Program objectives 
address the following key areas: (1) Public Health; (2) Surface- and Ground- Water 
Resources; (3) Agricultural Productivity; and (4) Fish and Wildlife Resources. 

Inquiries concerning the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program may be directed to: 

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2143 
Sacramento, California 95825-1898 



The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program acknowledges the assistance of Kristi 
M. Branch, of the Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Seattie, Washington, in the 
preparation of the analytic framework for the social component of the drainage program, 
and overview document. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary vii 

1 .0 Overview of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 1 

2.0 Purpose of die Social Environment Reports and Social Analyses 5 

3.0 Framework, Theoretical Bases, and Rationale for the Social Analysis 7 

4.0 Summary of the Social Environment Reports 13 

4. 1 Social Aspects of Agricultural and Agriculturally-Related Operations 

in the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley 13 

4.2 Agricultural Drainwater Management Organizations in the Drainage 
Problem Area of the Grassland Area of the San Joaquin Valley 13 

4.3 Ownership and Recreational Use of Wetlands in the Grasslands Water 
Districtand Refuges of the Central San Joaquin Valley 13 

4.4 Profile of Westside San Joaquin Valley Stakeholder Groups 
and Voluntary Organizations Involved in Agricultural 
Drainage-Related Issues 14 

4.5 Westside Communities and their Relationship to Agriculture 

and Wetlands Management 14 

4. 6 Characterization of the Capacity of Key Federal and State 
Action-Taking Organizations to Implement Plans for Drainage 
Management in the San Joaquin Valley 14 

5.0 Citations 15 



TABLE OF FIGURES 

1-1 SJVDP Study Area and Subareas 4 

3-1 Social Analysis Diagram 9 

3-2 Plan Development and Implementation 11 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



This report provides an overview of the social component of the San Joaquin Valley 
Drainage Program. It summarizes the purpose of the social environment reports and social 
analyses that are being conducted during the planning process. It provides a brief 
description of the framework, theoretical bases, and rationale for the analyses being 
conducted and the reports that are being prepared. 

Overall, the objective of the social component is to assist the planning team in 
formulating and evaluating options that are ecologically sound, technically effective, legally 
correct, politically feasible, and socially acceptable. More specifically, the social 
component is responsible for identifying, describing, and analyzing the groups, 
organizations, social structures, and social processes that contribute to drainage problems 
and their solution. 

The social component is planning to prepare six reports: 

Social Aspects of Agricultural and Agriculturally-Related Operations in the 
Westside of the San Joaquin Valley 

Agricultural Drainwater Administration in the Subareas of the San Joaquin 
Valley 

Ownership and Recreational Use of Wedands in the Grasslands Water District 
and Refuges of the Central San Joaquin Valley. 

Profile of Westside San Joaquin Valley Stakeholder Groups and Voluntary 
Organizations Involved in Agricultural Drainage-Related Issues 

Westside Communities and their Relationship to Agriculture and Wedands 
Management 

Characterization of the Capacity of Key Federal and State Action-Taking 
Organizations to Implement plans for Drainage Management in the San 
Joaquin Valley. 



m 



IV 



1.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DRAINAGE 

PROGRAMi 

Agricultural lands on the westside of the San Joaquin Valley are becoming 
increasingly impacted by rising saline shallow groundwater as a result of irrigation with 
water primarily from federal and state water projects. This problem is a result of a 
combination of (1) geologic and soil conditions which restrict downward movement of 
water below the crop root zone; (2) native soil salinity; and (3) inefficient irrigation water 
management. The problem is most pressing toward the foot of the alluvial fans originating 
from the Coast Range Mountains on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley where flat 
topography and very slow permeability soils do not allow adequate natural drainage. 

A valley-wide master drain was originally planned to dispose of agricultural waste 
waters into the Delta-Suisun Bay area which is directly connected to the San Francisco 
Bay. However, the master drain was not constructed because of the projected high 
construction cost and environmental concerns over inorganic and organic chemical 
constituents in the drainage waters. In lieu of a valley- wide master drain, the U.S.Bureau 
of Reclamation (USBR) began construction of a concrete-lined drainage canal (San Luis 
Drain) to remove drainage waters from the San Luis Unit federal service area. Kesterson 
Reservoir, a series of ponds 12 miles north of Los Banos, was constructed to temporarily 
hold these waters. 

Following disclosure of bird mortalities in the Kesterson Reservoir caused by 
selenium from the introduced drainage waters and concern for public health, the 
Department of Interior, in a March 1985 agreement with Wesdands Water District, called 
for cessation of all drainage flows into the reservoir by June 30, 1986. 

The San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program was established in 1984 by then 
Secretary of the Interior William Clark and California Governor George Deukmejian. The 
purpose of the program, as stated by Secretary Clark in 1984, was to conduct 
"comprehensive studies to identify the magnitude and sources of the (drainage) problem, 
the toxic effects of selenium on wildlife, and what actions need to be taken to resolve these 
issues." Four principal concerns were to be addressed by the Program: (1) agricultural 
productivity; (2) fish and wildlife resources; (3) water quality; and (4) public health. 

Given these concerns, the Program was designed as a cooperative effon of the 
USBR, die US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Geological Survey, and California 



^Abstracted from Developing Options . SJVDP, October 1987, the Executive Summary of the Evaluation of 
On-Farm Agricultural Management Alternatives. Boyle Engineering Corporation, October 1987 and the Draft 
Planners' Guide to the Analytic Tools of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program . SCJDP January 1988. 



Departments of Fish and Game and Water Resources to investigate possible alternatives 
that would provide a solution to the San Joaquin Valley agricultural drainage problem by 
formulating, evaluating, and recommending alternatives for (1) minimizing public health 
risks which may be associated with drainage water; (2) protecting existing and future 
reasonable and beneficial uses of surface and ground water; (3) sustaining the productivity 
of existing farmlands in the western San Joaquin Valley; (4) protecting and enhancing fish 
and wildlife resources. 

The planning process is being conducted by completing the following steps: 

• Identify the drainage and drainage-related problems 

• Improve the data base on source, mobility and amount of trace elements; 
groundwater hydrology; extent, nature, and severity of contaminants; toxic 
effects on fish and wildlife; potential hazards to public health; irrigation and 
drainage management technology; and drainage water treatment 

• Develop analytic models and procedures regarding agricultural production; 
on-farm drainage management; regional hydrology; regional economics; social 
factors; fish and wildhfe; and recreational values 

• Identify potential management options in the fields of on-farm water 
management; fish and wildlife habitat management; ground water 
management; land use changes; drainage treatment, reuse, and disposal; and 
institutional and legal changes. 

• Evaluate the options according to the criteria of effectiveness in accompUshing 
the objectives; risks involved; environmental impact; legal and institutional 
feasibility; economic efficiency (cost;/benefit); social effects; and irreversible 
commitment of resources 

• Formulate alternative plans (scenarios) 

• Evaluate the effects of different alternatives in terms of national and regional 
economic development; environmental quality; and other social effects 

• Recommend the most suitable plan 

In addition to the Program's primary mission of developing solutions for drainage 
and related problems in the San Joaquin Valley, the results of Program research are 
expected to contribute to related major policy decisions serving needs at local. State, and 
Federal levels. For example, the Program findings will contribute to: 

• Development of the Plan for Drainage Service Facilities under provisions of 
the settiement between Westiands Water District and the Department of the 
Interior (US District Court No. CV 79-106-EDP, Stipulation for Compromise 
Settlement) 



• Establishment/revision of water-quality objectives for the San Joaquin River 
Basin and the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta by the State Water Resources 
Control Board and regional boards 

• Application to westwide drainage problems being investigated by the 
Department of the Interior's National Irrigation Drainage Program. 

For planning purposes, the San Joaquin Valley has been divided into a General 
Study Area, which includes the entire San Joaquin Valley, from the drainage divide of the 
Coast Range to the foothills (1,000 foot elevation) of the Sierra Nevada. The Valley is 
divided roughly in half by the San Joaquin and Tulare Lake drainage basins. As shown in 
Figure 1-1, the General Study Area is further divided to identify a Principal Study Area that 
includes lands that are currentiy or potentially affected by problems related to agricultural 
drainage. The Principal Study area extends the length of the western side of the San 
Joaquin Valley and includes the State and Federal water project service areas. Within the 
principal study area, five subareas, based on hydrologic considerations, political 
boundaries, current drainage practices, and/or the nature of drainage-related problems have 
been tentatively identified. These subareas are also shown in Figure 1-1. 



Figure 1-1 . SJVDP Study Area and Subareas 




San Joaquin VaPay Study Araa 
Study Area Sub-area Boundary 
■ County Boundary 



2.0 PURPOSE OF THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT REPORTS AND 

SOCIAL ANALYSES 

The social component of a program such as the San Joaquin Valley Drainage 
Program (SJVDP) is generally responsible for a number of somewhat different types of 
analysis. First, it is responsible for identifying and clarifying who the key stakeholders 
are; how their activities, organizations, and values are related to wildlife, drainage, 
irrigation, and agriculture; what they see to be the problems and issues associated with the 
current situation and with proposed solutions; and how they think the program should 
address the problem. In this arena, the social assessment works closely with the pubhc 
involvement, program management, and technical components of the program. Second, 
the social component is responsible for profiUng the different social groups and 
organizations and analyzing how they are likely to understand and respond to the technical 
and scientific information that emerges during the course of the program, and to the actions 
of other groups and organizations. Third, the social assessment is responsible for 
delineating and quantifying causal relationships that lead to social change and for analyzing 
how various plan options will affect future social conditions. Finally, the social 
assessment is responsible for summarizing the social meaning or impact of the changes 
associated with SJVDP plans and activities and analyzing the acceptability of those plans 
and activities. 

Overall, the social component must assist the planning team in fonnulating 
and evaluating options that are: 

Ecologically sound 

Technically effective 

Legally correct 

Politically feasible 

Socially acceptable. 

To support these analyses, the social component of the San Joaquin Valley 
Drainage program is preparing a series of reports that provide background and descriptive 
information on key aspects of the social environment. Reflecting the stakeholder groups 
and organizations in the westside of the San Joaquin Valley, the problems they see needing 
to be addressed, the social organization of the affected area, and the planning options 
identified by the SJVDP, six social environment reports are planned: (1) Social Aspects of 
Agricultural and Agriculturally-Related Operations in the Westside of the San Joaquin 
Valley; (2) Agricultural Drainwater Management Organizations in the Drainage Problem 



Area of the Grassland Area of the San Joaquin Valley; (3) Ownership and Recreational Use 
of Wetlands in the Grasslands Water District and Refuges of the Central San Joaquin 
Valley; (4) Profile of Westside Stakeholder Groups and Voluntary Organizations Involved 
in Agricultural Drainage-Related Issues; (5) Westside Communities and their Relationship 
to Agriculture and Wedands Management; and (6) Characterization of the Capacity of Key 
Federal and State Action-Taking Organizations to Implement Plans for Drainage 
Management in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Although these reports are being prepared separately, they each contribute to an 
overall framework that recognizes the importance of interaction among all facets of the 
social system. The reports are intended to communicate the analytic framework, 
information needs, and analytic results of the social component to other members of the 
San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program Team and interested pubUcs. The reports provide a 
forum for compiling information that is currentiy scattered among a variety of sources, for 
identifying gaps in the existing information base, and for prioritizing research to gather 
additional information. As part of the iterative nature of the social analysis, additional data 
compiled from newly identified secondary sources, comments from planning team 
members and the publics, and primary research (where possible) will be incorporated into 
the reports to provide as complete a description of the social environment as possible. As 
the problem definition and compilation of descriptive information proceeds, the analytic 
models will be expUcated more fully. An important additional responsibility of the social 
component is to relate the information in these reports to the formulation of plan options 
and plan implementation strategies. 



3.0 FRAMEWORK, THEORETICAL BASES, AND RATIONALE FOR 

THE SOCIAL ANALYSIS 

Initial investigations of the definition of the problems to be addressed by the SA^'DP 
have identified six categories of issues that the analytic framework needs to be able to 
address. These are: 

1 . General Government and Governance Issues 

These include issues of federal vs state vs local control, governmental 
intervention and regulation, implementation feasibility, and legitimacy. 

2. Water 

These include issues of water rights (to surface and ground water), water 
quality standards, water allocation and payment mechanisms, etc. 

3 . Agriculture 

These include issues of agricultural irrigation subsidies, the priority and 
sustainability of agriculture as an economic/social activity, large and small- 
scale agriculture, etc. 

4. Land, Habitat, Wildlife, and the Environment 

Issues in this category include the priority and utility of habitat, the value and 
uses of land; the protection of wilcUife habitat and health of wildlife, and 
broad issues concerning the environment— long-term vs short-term 
perspectives, etc. 

5. PubUcHealtii 

Issues here concern the establish of appropriate environmental standards to 
protect human health, and assessment of the threat posed to public health by 
existing and proposed actions, including perceptions of a public health threat. 

6. Communities 

These include issues of community viability and vitality, social priorities, 
quality of life. 

To address the complex and dynamic issues that are the basis of the planning effon, 
the social analysis combines the research and analytic perspectives of sociology, 
economics, psychology, geography, and political science. A basic premise of the analytic 
framework developed for this analysis is that it must be capable of addressing the diverse 
issues associated with the drainage program, and of forecasting and assessing both the 
objective social outcomes and subjective social meaning of the complex variety of plan 
options being considered. 

An important contribution of the social analysis component is to help structure the 
planning and analytic process by identifying, categorizing, and profiling the various 
interested and affected parties and their interrelationships. The social analysis must clarify 
how each of these groups define the problem, where they feel tiie burden of proof lies, and 



which features of the plan options/outcomes they consider desirable/undesirable and 
acceptable/unacceptable. For these reasons, the analytic framework of the social 
component provides for structured analyses to (1) identify and quantify, where possible, 
social attributes of the study area residents and organizations; (2) incorporate this 
information into forecasts of the key, objective social outcomes that would result from 
implementation of the various plan options; and (3) apply information about objective 
interests and subjective perceptions to assess the public acceptability of plan options and 
objective outcomes. 

The plan options require a variety of actions to be taken by a diverse set of 
organizations and individuals. Consequently, the social analysis requires an analytic 
framework that facUitates identification of key social structural features, understanding of 
the social and political processes by which these structures will be maintained or modified, 
and incorporation of social psychological variables tiiat influence the abiUty and willingness 
of key organizations and groups of individuals to take various actions. 

As shown in Figure 3-1, the analytic framework developed for this analysis is 
based on the identification and characterization of: the key action-taking organizations, 
particularly the water utility districts involved in agriculture and wetlands habitat, and the 
following components of the study area: 

Key Federal and State Action-Taking Organizations 

Key Local Action-Taking Organizations, particularly water utility districts 
providing irrigation and drainage to agriculture and wetlands operations 

Agricultural and Agriculturally-Related Operations 

Habitat Management Operations (Duck Clubs, Private Habitat Areas, Federal 
Refuges, State Wildlife Areas, Other Public Lands) 

Communities 

Other Interested Parties, particularly environmental organizations actively 
involved in water allocation, agricultural drainage, and wetiand habitat issues. 

Sufficient information is being sought on each of these components of the study 
area to support all four types of analysis and to assist the SJVDP with problem definition, 
goal setting, option formulation and evaluation, impact assessment, and impact mitigation. 

Existing social structure is a result of interaction between previous structure and on- 
going scx:ial processes and relationships. Social meaning is created by the interpretation 
and value given to events and processes. Forecasting of future social conditions requires 
analysis of how existing social structure, on-going social processes, social values, and 
external forces for change interact over time. The objective of the analytic framework is to 



FIGURE UN 
SOCIAL ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 



c 



Definition of th» 
Problem and Ob|ectives 



Alternatives 



Existing Social and 
Institutional Characterl 



sticsj 



r ^ 

Supporting Analyses 

• Hydrology 

• Treatment 

• Disposal 

• Economic 

• Fish and Wildlife 

• Public Health 

• Legal and Institutional 



>j 

Potential Implementation I 

Mechanisms and Procedures! 



iPour Criteria of Capacity) 



Analysis of Capacity of Action-Taking Organizations 

• Federal, Water and Environmental 

• State, Water and Environmental 

• Local and Regional Water Management (Water, Irrigation, Canal) Districts 

• Agricultural Extension and Technical Assistance Orgctnizations 



Analysis of Response to and Impacts of Alternative Actions 



Agricultural Operations 

• Number and size of operations 

• Number and characteristics of owners, 
operators, wori<ers and their families 

• Ability and willingness to adopt 
recommended practices 

• Acceptability of goals and methods 
of implementation 

• Quality of fami life and work 



Private Wetland Habitat Operations 
(Primarily Duck Clubs) 

• Number and size of operations 

• Number and characteristics of owners, 
operators, shareholders 

' Ability and willingness to adopt 

recommended practices 
' Acceptability of goals and methods 

of implementation 
■ Quality of life 



Public Wetland 
Habitat Operations 

• Size and character of operations 

• Ability and willingness to adopt 
recommended practices 

• Acceptability of goals and 
methods of implementation 

• Quality of life 



I 



Local Communities 

• Population size and characteristics 

• Economic diversity and vitality 

• Infrastructure (public and private) 

• Acceptability of goals and 
methods of implementation 



I 



Other Stakeholders 
(Environmental and Special 
Interest Groups) 

■ Acceptability of goals and methods 
of implementation 



(How does alternative 
contribute to reasonable 
balanced solution?) 




T 



Feedback to Problem Identification, 

Objective Specification, and 

Alternatives Formulation 



Plan 
Alternatives 



reflect the salient features of the social structure in the study area. The social analysis uses 
sociological, economic, psychological, geographic, and political science theory in 
combination with descriptive information about the study area to identify the key attributes 
of this structure, the on-going social processes, the values of the affected populations, and 
the forces for change. 

Of particular importance in the analytic fi-amework illustrated in Figure 3- 1 is the 
role of the action-taking organizations. It is the premise of this approach that a relatively 
small number of organizations will have key responsibility for initiating the actions required 
to resolve the drainage problem. In addition, this approach assumes that the plan to be 
developed by the S JVDP will call upon these agencies to take some action(s). Action- 
taking organizations such as the California Department of Water Resources, State Water 
Resources Control Board, Departments of Health Services, Fish and Game, and Ecology; 
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife; and local water utility districts will 
play a key role in the acceptance and implementation of plan options. This means that the 
willingness and ability of these organizations to undertake these actions, and the 
effectiveness with which they perform them, have primary importance for the viability of 
any proposed solution. Figure 3-2 is an elaboration of particular aspects of Figure 3- 1 . 
Figure 3-2 shows that the capacity of an action-taking organization to take action depends 
not only upon its internal characteristics, but also upon its relationships with its constituents 
and competing organizations and the perceived and actual consequences of the proposed 
action for those constituents and competitors. The analysis of the westside social 
environment must provide the information needed for this evaluation. 

Draft reports on the topics identified above are being prepared. In the first iteration 
of these reports, readily available information is compiled, reviewed and analyzed to 
provide an initial formulation of the key stakeholders, their characteristics, perceptions of 
the problems, and relationships with other key groups. These draft reports are to be 
circulated and discussed with the planning team and others to identify additional data 
sources, alternative or additional ways to represent the social organization and social 
characteristics of the study area, and to validate, to the extent possible, the characterization 
made of the social reality of each group. Based on this review, additional data will be 
compiled, reviewed, and incorporated into the framework. A goal of this effort is to 
provide and integrate "objective," quantitative measures of social characteristics/conditions 
with "subjective," qualitative information in a way that reflects the social reality of the 
westside of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Analyzing the activities, organizations, and institutions (here defined as established, 
accepted procedures, practices, and rules) with respect to the distribution and characteristics 
of the people engaged in them provides a basis for displaying patterns of social and 
institutional interaction of the study area population. Preliminary information about 



10 



FIGURE III-2 PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 



Public 
Involvement 



Stakeholders and Voluntary Organizations 

Agricultural Groups / Organizations 

Wetlands Habitat Groups / Organizations 

Communities 

Other interested Parties 



implement 
or Present 
to Publics 



Objective Setting 
Analysis 
Evaluation 
Diagnosis 




Researcii 
(Institutional, Legal) 
Capacity Analysis 



Determine 
Acceptability 



Present to 

Action-Taking 

Organizations 



Action-Taking 
Organizations 



11 



disagreement among the affected publics over the "real" problem that the drainage program 
should address provides the social component of the planning process with an analytic 
framework to determine (1) the key "institutions" regarding water, land, and habitat 
management, from the perspective of the affected publics; and (2) who accepts them, who 
rejects them, or isn't aware of them at all. This information could then be used by the 
planning team to identify the estabUshed, accepted, procedures, practices and rules that are 
incompatible with one another, determine whether they contribute to the drainage problem, 
and suggest institutional modifications required to implement plan proposals. 

The proposed approach is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation's "social 
account" and incorporates aspects of the analytic framework for social assessment in 
Chambers et al. (1982), Branch et al. (1984), Bradbury (1986), Flynn (1985), and Braund 
etal. (1985). 



12 



4.0 SUMMARY OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT REPORTS 

The following sections describe the reports that will be prepared for the six 
components of the social analysis. 

4.1 Social Aspects of Agricultural and Agriculturally-Related Operations 
in the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley 

This report compiles historical data and descriptive information about agriculture in 
each of the subareas of the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley. The report describes recent 
trends and current characteristics of land ownership pattems and the structure of farm 
operations in the five subareas. It discusses cropping pattems, existing water use, 
irrigation methods, agricultural employment, and farm worker characteristics, and presents 
a schema for identifying and analyzing social and economic factors influencing on-farm 
water and drainage management. 

4.2 Agricultural Drainwater Management Organizations in the Drainage 
Problem Area of the Grassland Area of the San Joaquin Valley 

The first report in this component provides a description and analysis of selected 
water utilities in the Grassland Drainage Subarea, highlighting the key water utiUties 
involved agricultural water and drainwater administration. The report describes the history, 
current organization and resources, and interorganizational relationships among drainwater 
producing, drainwater receiving, and drainwater conveying utilities. The report highlights 
the importance of both formal and informal arrangements in irrigated agriculture and 
wetland habitat management in the Grasslands Drainage Subarea. This description and 
analysis will be extended to the other subareas in the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
Study Area to determine whether this analytic schema holds and to further expUcate the 
critical features of formal and informal relationships involved in water and drainwater 
management in the Study Area. 

4.3 Ownership and Recreational Use of Wetlands in the Grasslands 
Water District and Refuges of the Central San Joaquin Valley 

Information has been gathered on ownership and management of wedand habitat in 
the Grasslands Subarea and on the social characteristics of wetland resource users. This 
information will serve as the basis for an analysis of the social implications of wetlands 
habitat management and use in the Grasslands Subarea and as a prototype for compilation 
and analysis of similar data for other wetland areas in the southern portion of the Study 
Area. 



13 



4.4 Profile of Westside San Joaquin Valley Stakeholder Groups and 
Voluntary Organizations Involved in Agricultural Drainage-Related 
Issues 

This component of the social analysis will identify and characterize the key 
stakeholder groups in the Study Area, with particular attention to their values and attitudes 
about drainage management alternatives. An initial characterization of the agricultural 
stakeholders is being drafted and will be used as a prototype for development of a more 
detailed, comprehensive profile of these groups. In addition, the voluntary organizations 
actively involved in defining drainage issues and shaping potential solutions will be 
identified and profiled. This profile will include a description of the role they have played 
in identifying drainage issues and in setting the research and policy agenda concerning 
drainwater management in the westside of the San Joaquin Valley. 

4.5 Westside Communities and their Relationship to Agriculture and 
Wetlands Management 

Drawing upon data compiled about the communities in the northern portion of the 
San Joaquin Valley Study Area and information generated by the WADE model, an analytic 
model will be developed to examine relationship among westside communities, agriculture, 
and wedand management and use. The purpose of this analysis is to estabUsh quantitative 
relationships between changes in wetland area and use, agricultural production, income, 
employment, and key community resources (population, employment, income, and tax 
revenues). Plan alternatives that affect wetlands and/or agriculture can then be analyzed for 
their effects on the resource base and vitality of westside communities. The objective is to 
develop an analytic model linking the WADE model with the GIS system to identify 
impacts to westside communities caused by changes in wetiand habitat and/or agricultural 
production. 

4.6 Characterization of the Capacity of Key Federal and State Action- 
Taking Organizations to Implement Plans for Drainage Management 
in the San Joaquin Valley 

This component will build on an analysis of the actions/policies/decisions required 
of key Federal and State agencies to implement each of die proposed plan alternatives. This 
analysis will identify the capacity requirements of these agencies for successful 
implementation of each alternative. The agencies will dien be characterized according to 
these capacity factors to assist the Planning Team evaluate the potential feasibility and 
effectiveness of the alternatives. 



14 



5.0 CITATIONS 



Albrecht, Stan L., and James G. Thompson 

1988 The Place of Attitudes and Perceptions in Social Impact Assessment. 
Society and Natural Resources. 1: 69-80. 

Bradbury, Judith 

1986 Social Impact Assessment: A Review and Proposed Approach. 

Las Vegas, Nevada: Science Applications International Corporation. 

Branch, Kristi, Douglas A. Hooper, James Thompson, and James Creighton 

1984 Guide To Social Assessment. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. 

Braund, Steven R. and Associates, John Kruse, and Frank Andrews 

1985 A Social Indicators System for PCS Impact Monitoring. Anchorage, 
Alaska: Steven R. Braund and Associates. 

Flynn, James 

1985 A Group Ecology Method For Social Impact Assessment. Social Impact 
Assessment Jan-June: 12-24. 



15